The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-12-23
Searching After Truth.

To the Editor Of the Press;
For some mysterious reasons, the moral or po-
litieal necessities Of our liquor law have always
required more tinkering by the legislature, more
gymnastics on the part Of the bench, and more
explanation. defence and apology on the part OF
newspaper writer's, than all the rest Of our crmi-
nal code
Since 1851 we have had no less than forty-three
separate liquor laws enacted for us, two Of them
By the last legislature.
II is not long since His Honor. Judge White
house in an impassioned charge TO the jury in the
Burns case. practically overruled both the su-
preme Court Of the United States and stili more
emphatcally the Supreme Court Of Maine by his
instruction that an importer could not lawfully
sell Imported liquors ia the original packages.
And now u porientous tempest in teapot has
suddenly arisen over another charge OF the same
Judge, twisting, and as Is contended, nullifying the
famous pYind Jttcte law OF last winter. QsS7, c.
14O, S..
have followed the controversy between the
PRkss and -. II. D." on this subject with an
amused interest, as the woman Of old did the
aght between the bear and her husband behind
the barn one winter afternoon. and thus far
must confess that IN my judgment the PRESS has
had rather lie best OF the argument.
Far be IL from me 10 take a hand IN this inter-
esiing controversy. except as an inquirer-a
seareher after truth.
-. H. d." says;
In ciru cases, prinaa rocie evidence undoubted-
~ requires" the jury 10 ind verdict IN accord
anee therewith and the court mas lhs power 70 OF
der such verdict; but in criminal eases PrtlnG
Jaeie evidence Is sufficient evidence 10 authorize.
bu not TO require the Iuly 70 hnd accordingly
sufficient reason Is that the lesisla i've department.
has not the constitutional power 10 require the
jury 10 convict Ia criminal case at all.
Allow me to ask what authority ~. II. d." has
for the foregoing statement2
am advised by the lawyer whom am In the
habit Of consulting in criminal cases, that our
State Constitution authorizes the jury IN atlsT-
dicieI,ts for libel, after having received the di-
recton Of the court to determine, at their discre
elOn both the idlg and the fact.
But had supposed that. In all ether criminal
proceedings, the jury were re4, ca 10 accept the
law as given them bv .ie court, ad faithfully 70
apply il to the facts, whether u agreed with their
Indeed, cannot draw any other Inference from
the language Of the constitution, and that for two
First, II such were not the general Iulc Of the
criminal law, what need was there for making an
exception M the single ease OF hbeir
Second II such we're not the general rule II the
criminal law, what mean the words "the direction
" Are Judges "learned in the law" appointed to
"direct lires as 10 the law In criminal as well as
civil eases and yet can II be that jurors, sworn
"tO give true verdict between the state and the
RESPONDENT according to the idw and the evidence
given them" are rot required TO find verdict In
accordance herewith"
If il is said that their verdict must be In accord
auce with the evidence az We'll as with the law,
and that the jury are sole Judges OF the evidence
answer thai this is equally true IN civil as In
criminal cases. In both alike 1.-THE evidence IS
given them by the witnesses, and not by the pre-
siding judge, who Is expressly forbidden, even 50
much as To express an opinion on any issue of
fact arising IN the, case, on pain Of new trlhi
which the law court Is required % erder IN sueh
a case.
II IS true that the Jury have the Poieer 70 violate
the law and their Oaths in criminal case " IT, ~
fusng to apply s'the laN given them ~ y e e9nFt
| to the uncOnfroyerted facts; IN Othtr WORDS, 10
disregard sthe direction Of the court by hnding
verdict for me prisoner. But they have precisely
the same power in a civl suit by finding verdict
i for the defendant: =, 49,. ,., ,,,
obtained Is not final and remedileSs, but that tho
/ indse may set aside similar verdict for defet-
dant In civil suit, my answer Is that this TACT does
NOT In the slight ST degree affect the duty Of the
| Jury, or the "requ!rements' Of the law.
BESIDES Il Is In the power Of the next Jury 10 re-
peat the misconduct aud so on until the law court
has been tired out, as has repeatedly happened In
this state, as u. n. B" pro ably VIII not deny.
therefor venture 10 deny the existence Of any
such distinction as he alleges, between the RE
quirements" of the law In civil and criminal cases
az at present advised: and l respectfully call on
him for information and enlightenment II am
misInicrmed. DRAco.